ParkMan

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I believe Mormon units have been allowed use single gender leaders. 

I could go on and on, but what's the point. You want to set your personal standard on others while trying to appear open mind with your Local Option. 

Barry

No problem @Eagledad.

Yes - I fully recognize that my point is not consistent from the perspective you are looking at it. 

I'm not attempting to advocate a particular political agenda, but instead am trying to keep Scouting out of political agendas.  Scouting has to get out of the politics business.

EDIT: Sorry, just saw @RememberSchiff's last append.  Not trying to inflame this at all.  Sorry folks.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

You had me up to here. What is the point of the local option if some options are off the table? All the examples you gave for supporting the local option are political in nature to some degree. This is exactly why many posters (pro gays included) didn't support the local option. How can the local option give COs room to provide a program if the CO is given limited options based on perception. I thought the whole idea of the local option was to give the BSA a break on perception.

Barry

I recognize the inconsistency in my statement.  In the case of female leaders for male scouts that question was settled years ago. Announcing a new policy that lets units now restrict leaders based on gender is going contrary to the general direction of the evolution of the country.  Making that decision today doesn't help anyone.  Making that decision 40 years ago would have been different.

But, were I trying to come up with a co code rule, I would say that in times of transition of commonly held values, the BSA should employ local choice to avoid picking a side on a contentious decision.  It's not in the benefit of Scouting to pick a side.  But since decisions like the gender of leaders is very long since settled, opening up those kind of issues again only goes go create division again on topics that are settled.  I don't think that benefits Scouting.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

You hit the nail on the head. The issue I have about this forum is that the discussion isn't sexist because in reality both youth genders learn more faster with role models of the same gender. But, members here have an agenda and that fact doesn't fit in their agenda. It's like the word racist, seems to be the go to defense these days when racism has nothing to do with the topic. It's just a word to shut down the other persons opinion.

[...]

I do agree that the GSUSA reason for not including boys or even men is not honest, what ever their reason. But, at least they are strait about it and I do respect that. Folks here on the BSA forum ignore the GSUSA all together as if the BSA is the evil sexist giant and the GSUSA doesn't exist. I think that hypocrisy is worse. 

On being able to discuss gender issues like this... 

Yes, I think it is excruciatingly hard in 2020 to discuss gender issues like this.  In fact, whether it's gender, race, or another characteristic where people feel there is discrimination, it is hard to do that.  My hunch is that as we've progressed in removing discrimination in our country, we are now tackling a lot of subtle and implicit discrimination.  It's taken a lot of pushing for a lot of years to get this far.  People are just naturally on the lookout for what they perceive as discrimination and push back.  

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

If each gender learns more from same gender leaders, then at the very least, we have to admit that we are willing to loose that advantage by mixing the adult genders, At least that is honest.

Oh, I know we can go on all day speaking of the outstanding skills and role modeling examples of each gender in the scouting program, but, that wasn't my point. I'm very pragmatic and find emotionally driven discussions frustrating. I believe intelligent people should make intelligent choices based from facts. And then justify their decision with intelligent reasoning. If you value  growth of your scouts is better with mixed genders than the advantages of single gender programs because mixed gender leadership give scouts a more rounded experience, I'm good with that. That is an intellectual choice and the reasoning admits sacrificing an advantage for another. But, if you believe all units should agree with you, then I would say that is an opinion biased on bias, not reason. If you really believe in the local option, you better be ready to support a unit you disagree with.

On the technical part of your comment...

I'll admit - it is just my opinion.  Yes, I do believe that it is better for our scouts to have the more rounded experience of mixed gender leadership.  I suspect there is probably no fact based way to decide that question - it's just a policy choice about what kind of skills do we want the Scouts to develop. 

If we were rolling back the clock to before the choice to have female leaders had been made, then yes - I would have lobbied for a unit choice option.  I would have been absolutely fine in supporting both unit models.  Today, I would not roll back the decision thought and would not off this as a unit level choice.  I recognize that this can be viewed as inconsistent.  To be transparent, I do strongly favor mixed gender leaders in units (again a bias of mine).  However, I do not believe that my personal bias is the basis for this recommendation. 

The basis for my position is two fold: 1) I believe that BSA should reflect the trends in our country and, 2) should actively work to stay above divisive political issues.  Years ago when the BSA saw that the country was moving in the direction of mixed gender leadership teams, they should have gone along and said - "ok, this is a new idea that is clearly becoming part of accepted life.  As such, we will leave this choice up to you."  The would have followed the trends and stayed above politics.  However, in 2020, the country is well integrated and the time for this decision long passed.  If the BSA made all male leadership teams a unit choice today, it would be going counter to the general direction of the country.  The BSA would be opening up yet another controversial political decision.  So while they would have left this to unit choice, they would be doing so at the expense of yet another political battle.  The BSA needs to be above polticial battles - not starting them.

Just now, yknot said:

I so appreciate your viewpoint and agree. I will do my best not to sally forth to do battle the next time something yanks my chain. 

Hah!  It would be a lot quieter around here with less battling

Joking aside - I find that in these exchanges we're getting to some of the more ingrained issues that normally don't get discussed.  We're a very small microcosm of Scouting, but I see lots of great ideas being shared here.

7 minutes ago, yknot said:

Again, I ask what we are debating here. Up until the post WWII era in the US, and even in many parts of present day Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Asia, and Africa, many women have mastered and still have many of the outdoors or rural living related skills that most US men have forgotten and no longer have simply because they need them to survive. This is not a discussion on what women are capable or not capable of. It is a discussion of what US men's perceptions are regarding women in scouting. 

From what I saw, an errant comment kicked off a side conversation about gender.  That comment was that about how adding women as leaders in the program 40 years ago resulted in fewer trained leaders.  That led to a debate about why it was even mentioned and pointed out.  One person thought it was sexist to mention it, the person thought it was fine to mention it as a historical fact.  The minute the term sexist entered the discussion people got defensive because no-one really thinks that they are being sexist.

The question I see on the table is whether we should even discuss gender anymore in the context of Scouting.  My perspective is that we should not.

29 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

How could anyone protect themselves from what is happening today?  How could anyone decide the proper insurance amount?  How could anyone protect themselves against a drastic societal change?   Most blatantly ... Laws changed to re-open lapsed liabilities.

I now I've said it before, but this whole situation is ugly on top of ugly and injustice on top of injustice.  Sadly, the only ones profiting are muck rackers.  

Agree 100%.  When it was people suing the Catholic Church it was one thing.  When it was people suing the BSA another.  When there are 6,000 lawsuits each for $10,000,000 against churches, schools, whatever, we'll have to see what happens.  When those 6,000 run out, I suspect lawyers will then go after whomever was abused 40+ years ago and sue that institution.  Clearly no entity was as attentive to the question of abuse as we are today.  I would think it would be easy for lawyers to go after youth sports, school districts, Sunday schools, next...

2 hours ago, David CO said:

 It wouldn't surprise me if they try to collect from the CO's insurance policies as well as the BSA policy.  I don't think the CO's insurance company would be willing to contribute to the bankruptcy fund.  Each CO would have to be sued individually.

I suspect that you are correct.  You can add the councils to the settlement because there is an obvious linkage between national and councils.  Not so in the case of a church somewhere. The only saving grace for the COs is that the volume of lawsuits required may be a deterrent to the lawyers.

4 hours ago, yknot said:

OK I think I get what you are saying. You are talking about some of the research that shows that boys learn better from male teachers?  As a parent of two boys I would agree there is something to that. However, there is also research showing that women are far less likely to abuse children and abuse has a tremendously negative effect on ability to learn in both genders. There is also the teacher gene at play. Some people are inherently good at teaching and managing children. Others, despite whatever degrees or training they have, are not. There are also teachers, male or female, who seem to be better at teaching either boys or girls and it doesn't track at all by gender. And I use teacher loosely here -- I mean anyone who takes on the responsibility to interact with children in an extramural role.  I think these kinds of studies are worth noting and keeping under the belt, but I think we have to be careful of lasering in too tightly on one consideration because producing decent young human beings is tremendously complex and what works or doesn't work is multifactorial. 

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

So you think a discussion on the subject is sexist.

You gotta love the irony that the subject would be discussed honestly on the GSUSA forum.

Barry

The problem is that in either a GSUSA or BSA discussion it's too easy to draw a sexist conclusion from this.

It's certainly very probable that this are some inherent biological differences between genders that will exhibit themselves in subtle ways.  As such, it would be a mistake to not have boys learn from adult men and it would be an equal mistake to not have girls learn from adult women.  However, what we're seeing society tells us is that it's beneficial for boys to learn from both men and women and for girls to learn from both women and men.

In 2020, the country is functionally a gender integrated place.  Most every job is open to both genders.  In whatever role these kids play in life they will interact with both genders.  75 or 100 years ago gender seperated Scouting programs made sense because adult life was very different for each gender.  Today, adult life is not that different at all for each gender.  Further, we now have both genders with equal technical and leadership skills.  Some of the strongest outdoor people I know are women.  Some of the strongest leaders I know are women.  These women bring real value to the boys (and girls) in the program.  Boys (and girls as well) benefit from having both male and female leaders.

Where I think this gets sexist quickly is that despite all the benefits of having mixed gender leaders, we all too often bring up the opposite gender in examples.  I don't think people are trying to be sexist, but it becomes sexist.  Why else have a discussion about the impact of women as leaders if not for the purpose of making the argument that men as leaders is inherently preferable to women as leaders?

This, by the way, is why I think the GSUSA model is inherently sexist.  I find it shortsighted that the GSUSA believes that the path to empowering girls to become strong leaders is by having an environment where they are supported by strong women.  In this I think the BSA is already years ahead of the GSUSA.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

But that's the point I asked in another thread about following rules.

[...]

It isn't the CO's "youth program". If the only limitation you want to impose is "don't meddle with advancement" then you don't have a cohesive organization or program. Unit A can decide it will do away with BSA's Youth Protection, Unit B can be limited to only white children, etc.

Then you don't have Boy Scouts of America. You've got an off the shelf, customizable mess in which anyone can slap the label on their program and call it "Boy Scouts" or "Scouts, BSA."

However, it really is the CO's unit program.  They own it, they staff it, they decide what to do.  If they want to go camping, they go camping.  If they want to focus on just leadership development, they do that. 

Here is the text from the Chartered Organization Agreement:

Quote

The Chartered Organization agrees to:
• Use Scouting to further the Chartered Organization’s aims and values for youth.
• Chartered organizations must utilize the Scouting program to accomplish specific objectives related to one or more of the following:

• Youth character development
• Career skill development
• Community service
• Patriotism and military and veteran recognition
• Faith-based youth ministry

• Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies. They may be found on the My.Scouting website and at the following location: www.scouting.org/about/membership-standards/.
• Chartered organizations must not use the Scouting program to pursue any objectives related to political or social advocacy, including partisan politics, support or opposition to government action, or controversial legal, political, or social issues or causes.
• Be represented in the Local Council and the local Scouting district by a Chartered Organization Representative (COR), who will be appointed by the Chartered Organization. The COR will be the point of contact between the Chartered Organization and the Local Council; will serve as a voting member of district and council committees on which the COR serves; and will, with the Chartered Organization, select and approve volunteer leaders for submission to the Local Council for its consideration. The COR will work with the unit committees sponsored by the Chartered Organization.
• Support unit committee(s) made up of at least three persons for each unit.
• Assure that adults selected as unit leaders are suitable by, at a minimum, having the appropriate leaders of the Chartered Organization review and sign each application.
• Ensure appropriate facilities for the unit for its regular meetings to facilitate the aims of the Chartered Organization and Scouting.
• Encourage adult leaders to receive additional applicable training made available by the council.

Nowhere in the agreement is text that you have to follow the program exactly as defined by the BSA.

Now, one could look at this and think it's a mess.  The potential is surely there for huge swings in how programs are implemented.  However, in reality most units are leveraging the program because they want to utilize the program as defined by the BSA.  In essence why would you go to the hassle of having a Scout troop is you didn't want to have a Scout troop?

Further, I've found that the CO concept is actually a driving force in consistency across the program.  One of the other current discussions in this topic is about the impact of untrained leaders entering the program.  In that conversation is a reoccuring theme that untrained leaders result in derivations from the program.  Leaders who do not have experience in the program "guess" on the implementation and often go in unexpected directions.  What usually happens is that those leaders eventually realize that their actions resulted in something unintended and after a few tries settle in on a fairly consistent approach.  In essence junior leaders become senior leaders.  So, units that last for a long time tend to have a group of senior leaders that have the experience to guide through the issues and sort out the problems.  This results in a pretty consistent program.  In the case of the BSA standard programming, larger units with more stable leadership pretty much do the same things.  It's the newer units or those struggling for leaders that tend to see more variation in programming.  

So, as a result, by leveraging the CO concept, we have a fairly stable program offering across the BSA.  

8 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

At least in my neck of the woods, sad, but true. We lost a lot of experienced Scouters, and have not recovered yet.

One challenge the remaining experienced Scouters are having is that the inexperienced folks want things their way. No matter what type of training you do for them, counselling or discussion you have with them, they will tell you Scouting needs to change with the times and their way is better, ignore you, or become downright nasty with you. I have had inexperienced adults threaten to leave if they didn't get their way, thus stranding Scouts and ruining program. I have been yelled that I don't know what I am doing when i have tried to talk to some folks.

Ahh - I find it an interesting challenge in the context of a topic that started about Wood Badge.  In fact, this is one of those things that the current version tries to prepare leaders for.  

It's time for the BSA to stop referring to moms or dads or male Scouters or female Scouters.  It's just Scouters.  You want to have the BSA change the conversation, this is one way.

Almost never does gender matter in these discussions.  The only time you should ever need to refer to gender is to point to the facilities - other than that, gender should never be referenced.

Why?  The core issues we are discussing - inexperience among adults, youth experience in the program, hovering parents, really have nothing to do with gender - those problems are generic.  When we start adding gender in, we start becoming divisive. The conversation quickly gets distracted from the main issue - dealing with the behavior patterns we are trying to describe.  I think we'd be better off the BSA simply stopped the practice of using gender labels in conversation altogether.

50 minutes ago, David CO said:

That may be true, but the bowling club, the tennis club, and the soccer team don't usually charter boy scout units.  Chartered Organizations charter boy scout units, and many of them are churches.  Religious and moral beliefs are a big deal to the churches.  

All of our sports teams begin each game with a public prayer.  This is very common in Catholic schools.  Our religion is a big part of every activity we do.  That includes sports and scouting.

These issues may not be a big deal for all of our kids.  They might not even be a big deal for all of our parents.  But they are definitely a big deal for many of the Chartered Organizations.

 

Ahh - of course, you're thinking about it from the CO perspective - as you should

I still am a fan of local option.  Here's how I would approach it and argue the BSA should have as well:

sexual orientation - The BSA should have no restrictions on who can join the program and shall make no requirements on who can join.  If a local CO has specific requirements for membership in their program, then so be it.  If, for example, a Catholic Church said that their youth and adult members in their programming had to be of one particular sexual orientation than so be it - it's their youth program.  If the elementary school down the street said that there were no restrictions then again, so be it. The CO is simply utilizing the program of the BSA in running their own youth program.  The BSA should make no requirements on who they either can or must admit to their youth program.

religious beliefs - The BSA should have no restrictions on who can join the program based on religious beliefs.  If a Methodist church said it wanted all their members to be devout Methodists then great.  If a Methodist church said that it didn't care, then so be it.  If a Baptist church wants to open every meeting with a prayer, then great.  If a Lutheran church wants to discuss religion in the context of character development - then great.  

But, in short - it's the CO's program.  Let them run their program their own way.  The only restriction being that you cannot add nor take away from advancement requirements.

The BSA should not make any attempt to become a wholly secular organization.  Similarly, the BSA should make no attempt to be a religious one either.  At district/council functions, there should be room for this to all coexist.  Scouts and Scouters should learn to respect the beliefs of others and so if there are members present who would benefit from grace before meals, then say grace.  The BSA should be about respecting the plurality of it's members - that plurality includes religious diversity.  Yes, some guidance would undoubtly have to be given so that this all is done appropriately - i.e., you cannot hold a mandatory 45 minute religious service at the start of a meal.   But you could hold an optional 45 minute service, take a quick break, and then reconvene and have lunch.

The message within the BSA should be about respecting each other, treating each other with respect, and doing the right thing.

56 minutes ago, David CO said:

Of course it had to be an issue.  The issue is everywhere.  There is no place in our society where it is not an issue.  

 

Neither sexual orientation nor religious beliefs are a factor in the bowling club, the tennis class, soccer team, etc...  

For kids in the program, both have very little impact unless we make them so.  People within the BSA felt they were important issues and so made them issues - but they really didn't have to be issues at all.

In the case of religious beliefs, there will need to be some adjustment to the requirements, but those changes are pretty surgical.  With local option, the unit can still say grace, have religious discussions, etc.  

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

I think you are right  except for the gender issue. There was never a public outcry for girls in Cubs and Troops and it has was left alone s a political activism for the reasons I stated earlier. It's still not an issue now for the GSUSA. 

Barry

Sorry - I was a bit too vague.  Yes, I agree.  Gender was never really any issue. At most, it became a perceived issue because we already were already sensitive about the other issues.

51 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

 

The suggestion in this discussion is that if the BSA relaxes on it's basic founding principles, it will appeal to more of the public. It did work for the Canadian scouts and I think the reason is the forces that pushed the Canadian Scouts to change came from activist, not the public. I think the same is happening with the BSA. The public in general supports the BSA program as they know it. The recent changes and future changes are from activism, and, well, the law suit. But, it's probably just as well, the culture will not allow a principled youth program program.

 

Where the BSA screwed up was in how they fought it.  The BSA made an issue out of something that never needed to be an issue.  

The three contentious membership issues are clearly sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and gender.  Imagine if instead of three, there had been just one - gender.  If sexual orientation and religious beliefs were local options, we never would have had the fight we had.  We never would have ticked off the politically motivated people who fought the BSA.  If we had not made it the issue we did and then changed our answer, we never would have lost alumni support.  

We got so hung up on these issues that we picked a fight we didn't need and one that did us not benefit.  If we won the argument we'd have lost.  If we lost the argument we'd have lost  Frankly - the argument was never all that germane to Scouting to start with.  As such we had an argument we never even really needed to have and ticked everyone off in the process.

EDIT: BTW - I have a suspicion that if we'd never picked the fight on the other two issues, the gender issue would never have been that big a deal.

15 hours ago, yknot said:

It also seems unrealistic not to understand that the piggy bank is broken and the pieces are never going to go back together the same way.  Whatever entity that comes out of the bankruptcy case is going to be vastly different than what is still operating now.

Wonderful post.  If I could like this 100 times, I would.  Thank you so much for articulating this so well.  The specifics are perfect.

I find myself reading most of these and thinking - yes, this works very well.  My big, overarching though is - program, program, program.  We need to be focused on building a great quality program with youth and not get too hung up on all the surrounding stuff.  It's too easy to lose sight of that.

I agreed with much of these:

• focus on being the premier outdoor program
  • Absolutely - I agree 100% with this.  Very well said.  Scouting is missing a HUGE opportunity here. 
• cost efficient
  • Establish a monthly fee cap of $5 per scout to fund both national and council.
  • Develop sustainable endowments for camp properties.  Fundraising should be targeted at improving services for youth - not in funding council operations.
• functional IT
  • Move to an all paperless system.  Eliminate the need for council employees to enter any data manually.
• social media platforms & marketing
  • Develop a brand identity that is an asset and encourages people to become involved with the program.  
    • Scouting needs a much stronger marketing presence.  Let's shift some of the money we spend to fielding a strong marketing presence.
  • Solve the youth problem of Scouts being perceived as "dorky." 
    • Enough with this.  Scouting needs to end this.
• de-emphasize religion
  • As a national organization, we need to reflect the nation.  I get the arguments and history here - but we can't be both a religious organization and a national organization.  Further, youth can get 95% of the benefits from what we do now with some subtle adjustments.
  • Welcome all kids to join Scouting
    • Religion is an important part of the life of many people, and Scouting should always welcome that. 
    • Yet, scouting needs to recognize and embrace people who are not actively religious.  To accomplish the focus should be on having a strong moral code - not having a belief in a higher power.  In the context of conversations about your personal moral code, religion should be discussed as a (and perhaps the) guiding factor for those with a belief if god.  But for kids who do not believe in god the path to a strong moral code could be something else.
  • Figure out a way to embrace both those who do, and do not, have a belief in a higher power. 
    • For example, discussions of religion need to be fine.  People also need to learn how to have them so that people who are not religious are not excluded.  Similarly people who are not religious need to learn how not to feel excluded.  We often see issues like this as binary -- either we embrace religion or exclude it.  Scouting needs to define a third approach.
• Restructure the BSA employees and volunteers
  • The BSA absolutely needs to end it's top down, autocratic model.
    • As you said, the world is moving towards a much more collaborative model.  The days of rigid, top down organizational structures are decreasing.  The organizational structure needs to reflect that.  Further, results need to be much more important than structure.
  • Migrate away from the DE position.
    • The DE role is poorly defined and utilized.  They are an expensive way to do much of what we do in Scouting.  Also, the DE model drives so much of what we do at the council level in terms of funding, fundraising, and operations.  End the days of generalist DEs running around doing stuff in a district.
• De-emphasize advancement
  • What you said here.  Agree.
• Training
  • Scouting should have an outdoor preparation program for adults that is second to none.  In fact, adults should wants volunteer just to get access to this program.
    • Imagine adult development programs on canoeing, camping, hiking, climbing, cycling, etc.  
    • I would focus much, much less on national standards for training.  The culture needs to be one where we embrace strong local experts and let them teach.
  • Build up a library of helpful videos
    • Imagine a series of short, quality youtube sessions where real people go over specific topics.  Imagine a whole series of videos on how to prepare for camp or how to run a Pinewood Derby.  The BSA should invest in some teams who know how to generate such content and get them out talking to units.
  • Whenever possible, hold in person training sessions.  Live, in person training is key to building excitement.  We'll have to sort out what goes on Youtube vs. what is worthy of being live, but I think we'll figure that out

One where I see things differently

• End the CO system
  • I understand your point here.
  • The benefits I see in the CO approach are:
    • It enables units to have some independence from the BSA organization.  Imagine if the Council Board or DEs or National was telling you were to camp, what to do, what you could buy, etc.  In the GSUSA the have requirements for what units do with money, how they spend it, etc.  Those rules are a detriment to a strong unit.
    • It provides permanence.  COs enable units to survive for decades.  In the GSUSA model, troops are much smaller because they lack permanence.  Permanence allows units to acquire skills, knowledge, gear, and equipment.  Permanence allows units to develop size and scale.
  • The CO model is one of the biggest successes of the BSA model.  Yes there are issues, but let's fix them

Just now, fred8033 said:

For summer camp, our troop adults bought a two burner version for the adult patrol.  We love it, but it's a beast.  A three burner version scares me.

Hah!

We also had one of the higher output one burner versions too - for large pots of water, soups, etc...  That thing sounded like a jet engine.

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Thrifty it was...   I picked this up for $127

https://smile.amazon.com/Camp-Chef-EX90LW-Explorer-Outdoor/dp/B00AYU8BUC/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2HGSK8YPV214L&dchild=1&keywords=camp+chef+explorer+3+burner+stove&qid=1603069910&sprefix=camp+chef+explorer+3+%2Caps%2C445&sr=8-4

When I was in Cubs we had a two burner version of that stove.  We LOVED it.

Perfect for feeding a larger group and pretty well built.  Worth every cent at retail.  Nice that you got it at such a discount.

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Vague descriptions? I'll have heard so far by the traditionalist/Back to the Future group has been "Let's go back to the program circa 1964" or 1927 or 1908.

I would encourage you to ask them what they mean by that - just as I have been attempting to do with you about your ideas. 

When I have asked traditionalists that question, usually what I hear is a belief that in earlier times there was more integrity to the underlying program itself.  That people took patrol method more seriously, that people took advancement more seriously.  There is a compelling argument to this effect.  Many organizations react to challenges in membership (or sales) by watering down their core offering in order to "appeal to more people."  This is always a dangerous play for any organization.  Usually successful organizations distinguish themselves by the quality and differentiation of their offering.  In my mind, this is the basis of their argument.

I think that your argument is all about broadening the membership base.  I'm inferring that you're in favor of removing restrictive joining rules - on girls, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.  I would welcome you to expand that argument further.

39 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Will you believe it? I give the results of our research of why families drop out and it’s disregarded. Folks here seem to only accept what fits their agenda. In fact, I would be surprised if today’s research didn’t support our data 25 years ago because program hasn’t really changed.

We didn’t have a theory when we did research. We had a problem but didn’t know why. Research took us to the problem. Once we saw the problem (like why first year scouts have the highest dropout rate), we could track it to when National started recording membership numbers. 

I have no doubt that your research was correct.  I myself imagine that most Scouts that quit do so because of poor program.  I am guessing that your research pointed to specific program areas that needed focus.

32 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Nope. You give your interpretation of data collection that may or may not have happened.

Using 25 year old data (which again, you refuse to share) to gauge current conditions? Sure, the program may not have changed, but parents and children and U.S. society HAVE.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.  The debate you need to be having is why don't people join Scouting in the first place, not why do people quit.  @Eagledad's research I imagine was on the question of why do people drop out.  I don't think I'd argue with any Scouter of his tenure and say that they doesn't understand why kids leave the program.

More broadly - I am sure there is a lot of merit in what you are saying.  However, it's value is getting lost in an overly vague discussion.  Are you lobbying for program, membership, marketing, changes or something else?  What do you want to see changed here?

I feel like much of this conversation has morphed into some sort of ridiculous theoretical debate.  The argument I see being portrayed is:

• The BSA should abandon it's program and turn into something completely different that is more relevant to the needs of today's families.
• The BSA should have a program that is exactly the same as it was in 1927.

If so, this is a nonsense debate because neither side makes any sense.  The reality is that the way forward for the BSA is somewhere in the middle and everyone knows it.  The real debate needs to be about specifics.  What would you change and why?  What is important to preserve and why?  

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

For those who are advocating the "Back to the Future" program, here's the two data points I'd like to see (it may not exist, I get that).

Drop Outs

Market research (properly done) on parents/scouts who DROP OUT OF THE PROGRAM.

1) Causes for dropping out (and if they self-offer that they "just wish things were like it were back in 1927", great!)

2) Offered solutions: "If we adopted the practices we had in 1927 (and spell out what those practices are) would you have stayed in scouting (for the scouts)/put your scout back in scouting (parents)?"

Never Entered

Market research (properly done) on parents and youth who NEVER ENTERED THE PROGRAM.

1) What caused you to not want to join? And ask directly whether the Scout's policies on homosexuals, girls, and God made a difference (either positively or negatively)

2) What if we changed our program to what it was in 1927 (and spell out what those practices are) would you be interested in joining (youth) or putting your child in such a program (parents)?

This is a good concrete recommendation.  Yes - let's do some market research to determine why people drop out of the program or never join.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The problem that the shift to gain additional "market share" was dressed up as "effort to open opportunities" and NOT what it was, a desperate attempt to bolster numbers in an mad dash to avoid total membership collapse. It looks disingenuous.

As for the broaden, it gets to a real question that that traditionalists have never, ever answered.

BSA membership is in freefall. Does the "Back to the Future" circa 1927 (or perhaps 1967) plan stem this? OR are the proponents simply accepting that the collapse of BSA membership is a given and the result is a much, much smaller but "pure" BSA?

RIght - as @Eagledad just correctly noted that doesn't point to a contradiction.  Adding girls to open up a new market doesn't mean that not having girls was the reason that fewer boys were joining.  Who knows why fewer boys are joining - but we cannot simply assume it's because there are no girls.  To borrow the phrase "correlation does not imply causation."

One reason you see a lot of experienced Scouters push back on suggestions of blanket change is because Scouting's history is full of people who show up and make changes.  In most cases those changes have not improved things.  Some quick examples that come to mind are: the Improved Scouting Program of the 70's, Learning for Life, Varsity Scouting, Scouting Soccer, & STEM Scouts.  These are all examples where someone said - "you need to change and here is that change."  Yet, through all of that, the core program has continued to survive.

As such, when people show up and say "you all need to change but offer no details", there is a lot of skepticism.  This is why change agents need to offer specifics.  What do you want to change, how will that change increase membership?

46 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I am just going to tell you about Traditional Scouting in my neck of the woods. IT WORKS! (emphasis).

[...]

Even the troops that are not as active like the two above have active traditional elements to keep interest. They may be more advancement oriented, or more adult led, or more outdoor club than a traditional Scout troop that is youth led. But they are still in the outdoors. The youth WANT the outdoor adventures. They want the challenges. And Traditional Scouting does prepare them for adulthood than anything else. 

Thank you for the wonderful examples of Scouting working today.

Our troop has similarly been quite successful.  We're about 60 kids today.  Covid dropped our numbers a bit, but not too much.  We are a very active, youth led, outdoor troop.  In any given month there are generally at least two outdoor activities of some form.  Troop meeting attendance is generally good.  Planning is driven by the youth and they determine what we do.

I will share that a lesson that I learned from this troop is that activity level matters more than most anything else.  Youth want to do things - they want to be active.  If you have an active program, youth join.  If you have a inactive program they get bored.  As I look around our district, I see that again and again.  Packs & troops that are active and energetic have members - those that are not, do not. 

If our district had 10 active troops like ours, we'd see a very different district. 

39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Note the contradiction here.

The girls membership policy no negative influence on membership...but was changed to increase membership.

This points to an important issue in making decisions about program changes.  Most organizations have a core offering or service that they provide - for many years in the BSA it was a youth program for boys.  In admitting girls, the BSA expanded their offering to an adjacent space - a youth program for girls.  In that move, the BSA expanded the total available audience for it's offering.  This results in the potential for more members.  Yet, it probably has mad a limited (if any) impact on the membership numbers from the original offering.

This is a very real business choice - do we try to gain additional market share in our core market or do we open up additional markets?  In other words, it Scouting better served by increasing the number of members from those kids we serve or by trying to broaden the number of youth we can recruit from?

Yet, I sense that your argument here is more about the offering and program itself.  That somehow the core Scouting program is a relic of the past and not compelling for modern youth.  Did I get that right?  If so, what is it about the program that you think needs to change?

Where I struggle with these kind of discussions is the lack of specifics.  I've got no idea whether we are talking about uniform colors, removing religion, getting rid of advancement, or turning Scouting into a badminton club.  

I found this helpful to understanding perspectives here:

53 minutes ago, yknot said:

I have advocated in multiple places for BSA to reposition itself as the premiere outdoors resource for the nation's youth. It's something we've moved away from while increasing emphasis on advancement and religion and adding an awful lot of things that feel more like school homework than the game with a purpose. 

Yet, in a comment like this one:

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My own objection is to the notion that taking a program from 1920, developed for a different populace and a VERY different nation and a different social and economic conditions, with different expectations and different family dynamics and superimposing that 1920 plan on to 2020 is simply asking for failure.

I get the very high level concept that yes, change is desired.  But I have no idea what change is desired.  It's impossible for me to think about what is being advocated for here because I simply do not know what change is wanted.  If it's a badminton club you seek, just let me know and we can discuss it.

Tongue in cheek aside - I would really welcome more specifics like those in the first passage I quoted.